this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
145 points (92.9% liked)

Programming

17031 readers
254 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
145
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Python is memory safe? Can't you access/address memory with C bindings?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Sounds like he's just mad something he made is being replaced with something that is better in every conceivable way

Sorry bud but most people are focusing on rust, not python, and you've been lapped by them several times over.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I'm just a modder and primarily use C, but started with BASIC and then C++; I am curious, without knowing anything other than the name and it's apparent growing popularity: What makes Rust so appealing? And if I was interested in trying to learn Python again, would it be better to just learn Rust instead?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Rust is the only language with the same low-level memory model of C/C++ (no garbage collector, focus on zero cost abstractions, etc) while also being memory-safe (like nearly all popular modern languages besides C/C++). Before Rust, you often had to choose between memory safety and performance.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)